Slashdot Mirror
Europe Building Their Own GPS
An anonymous reader writes "BBC News is reporting that Europe is planning to build their own satellite-navigation network that will be backward and forward compatible. There's going to be 5 levels ranging from free (1m accuracy) to commercial (1cm accuracy)! Provision is also being made for a search and rescue mode where a signal can be sent to confirm that help is on the way. The system will supposedly even work with existing US network after upgrades to the network."
Ofcourse, now the US has the control to disallow access in a warlike state with any country depending on the GPS tech for warfare or anything really. Which gives them ultimate control.
The US always has been nervous with anyone being able to dominate them or to get from under their control, even if such a move of the EU wouldn't be directly motivated by military purposes (the EU has been going away from an offensive army a long time ago and formed towards defensive and humanistic purposes), but maybe more by independance from US's powers. It's a pure dominating position the US strives to embody it seems. If it'd be looked like that (a military move) the US really should start to do some self-reflecting.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
While I agree largely with what you've said, it does raise some issues. First, it's not just Europeans that need Galileo. Everyone in the world will reap the benefits of a civil-run positioning system that isn't controlled by the Pentagon. Second, I think it is well within the bounds of sanity to question if it is needed. Yes, the reason you quoted is quite valid: the US government could mess with the GPS in the future and it's always nice to have an alternative system to balance it. But how much are we willing to pay for said alternative system? I believe the article said that it was going to cost $3-4bn. That's a lot of money. For my money, I would rather accept that when the US gets all flustered about a possible terrorist attack (or G-d forbid, another happens), my GPS gets bad accuracy or is turned off for a little while. Think of it like you think of a computer purchase (since this is Slashdot). With Dell, you have two notebook options: the Inspiron which is cheaper and less reliable, and the Latitude which is more expensive and more reliable. Which do you buy? For my use of GPS (which is limited to car navigation), it's not a big deal if the accuracy degrades and it really isn't even that big a deal if it is turned off - so, I'd have to go back to Mapquest like most of the world (or is it Google Maps that everyone's using today). I, as well as most people I would suspect, would choose price over the small possibility of degraded accuracy or a system lockout. While Galileo is free, nothing is free. It's being paid for with government money and the government money comes from people. Oh, and the article does mention that Galileo might be degraded or shut off in the most extreme circumstances and, to my knowledge, the United States hasn't been messing with GPS much if any. I hate a US hegemony as much as anyone, but Galileo is expensive (I think those billions could be better spent on thins like, say, treating Aids) and the US hasn't done anything (to my knowledge) with the GPS yet to make me too worried and even if the US does mess with it for non-mission critical things (like my car's nav system) temporarally, it isn't a big deal (not a big enough deal for me to want to spend $3-4bn on it). Yeah, using the GPS puts us all at the will of the Pentagon for our navigation needs, but creating an alternative is expensive and in my opinion more expensive than the freedom from the Pentagon's management is worth.
Talk about the ultimate terror weapon "country X, give up ________ or our GPS guided weapon will hit elementary school Y", etc., etc. Somehow I don't think that the free world --or even the non-free countries of the world, for that matter -- has much worry that the US military is going to ever do or be allowed to do something like that, do you?
;-)
US: "Iraq, give up your WMD or our GPS guided weapons will hit everything".
Iraq: "Dude, We don't have any! You've had people here looking for 10 years! We'd gladly turn them over if we had them but we don't. PLEASE DON'T BOMB US!!!!
US: "Whatever! You have till the count of three! one..two..BAMMMMM!
Nope, your right nothing to worry about. The US would NEVER do anything like that
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
OK let me start by saying that the two parents are being a bit absolutist and silly. YES, an EU-controlled GPS rival is a strategic threat to the US. This doesn't mean that we need to jam it or destroy it. French nuclear weapons are a strategic threat as well, but we don't propose to destroy them, either. We're the strongest power, but not the only power, and the EU (quite rightly) is working to increase their power relative to ours.
Similarly, this isn't some ham-handed reaction to the current administration. European attempts to counter and triangulate against American power date back to, well, the beginnings of American power. Even during the Cold War, European interests occassionally clashed with American interests. France's withdrawal from the NATO command structure in 1966, the Suez crisis, German attempts at appeasement vs the USSR, the "European Approach" to terrorism pre-9/11, conflicts over flyover rights during the Libyan attack, approaches to mid-east peace.... any of these sound familiar? In the 80's, American and Italian soldiers had an armed standoff on a NATO base. We stuck together and papered over our differences because of a larger enemy, but things haven't always been roses.
Post-Cold War, things have changed a bit. In the past, a larger common enemy (the USSR) kept the US and EU mostly at common purposes. Lacking that, ties began to fray. The Clinton Administration didn't initiate any major new foreign policy changes other than good relations for their own sake (for which the EU nations extracted diplomatic and trade concessions). Even then, however, a long-term goal of the franco-german alliance was to assemble a counterbalance to the US.
What's developing isn't emnity; it's just the kind of wary maneuvering that friendly nations normally practice. So of course the EU is rolling their own GPS system. And of course we'll invent countermeasures. This isn't because we hate them, or they hate us, or either of us expects to ever fight. This is the normal hedging of bets and accretion of power that nations practice. The structural issues of power are far more important than disputes of the moment.
It's really amazing how all this cold war rhetorics is dug up again (or has it never died?). Only Russia is no big threat atm so now it's China. I mean, what is it, is it paranoia or is it that US-Politics needs that big evil enemy to distract their people from the problems at home? It's a never ending story, China, Terrorists, evil Communists ... did anything change since McCarthy or do we need to relive all that crap because of 9/11?
Sure, 9/11 was a tragic event, but even more tragic is what was done to the american ideals of freedom and democracy in the name of the "war on terror".
Now what has all this to do with Galileo vs. GPS you may ask. Well, GPS is under US-military control. ATM they're acting like they could throw a fit of paranoia anytime and switch off all civil GPS functionality. Sory, but that's the picture the US government is sending out into the world: self centered control freaks with tunnelvision that might jump anytime for reasons only they know.
Now you wouldn't trust someone like that with a system your life depends on, but that's exactly what we need: GPS- (or Galileo-) guided navigation systems for planes and ships, fully automated systems relying on accurate GPS-coordinates for positioning, you name it. If it isn't lives depending on these systems it's at least big money.
And no, noone trusts the US to provide a reliable GPS service. They might switch off the system without prior warning because of some perceived terrorist threat (thereby doing more damage worldwide than any terrorist could), they might do it to damage european economy or threaten to do it in some kind of blackmail-scheme, who knows.
And that's why we need Galileo.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
really want to give another foreign and presumably malignant military power the ability to bomb down to one meter accuracy?
May be we should also shutdown internet, spy phone talks, and stop scientific research - since that research can be used for evil purposes.
Trust?
Thinking forward, what happens when the US decides to do to their GPS what they're trying to do to the Internet, i.e. dictate all possible uses and laws, from music downloading to what you're allowed to say on Wikipedia? What if the US disapproves of a war that the EU takes part in (in the same way that some EU nations disapproved of the Iraq war)? Would the US demand that the war stop or else they'd turn off their GPS system?
Were the situation reversed, would the US pay the EU for such a contract? Not a chance in hell.
Secondly, if you're going to use GPS for it's primary purpose (military), you want redundancy, not a single point of failure for all allied nations. If you'd be willing to pay another country for it, you'd be better off putting that money into another identical system.
And yet again, why should EU companies that require GPS to perform their business be paying a GPS tax to America when they could be paying that tax to the EU instead?
BTW, thought I'd pick apart your post (even though it is irrelevant to my point about need to worry about US use of GPS).
kept up a pretense of having WMD for over ten years
If by "kept up pretense of having WMD" you mean he repeatedly stated he had gotten rid of all the WMD the US gave him and Iraq no longer has any WMD then you may have a point.
and it was Hussein's unwillingness to submit to the UN resolutions to open up his former WMD plants, etc. for inspection that triggered the invasion.
The best rebuttal to this has to be the UN Quarterly report on weapon inspections just before the invasion. Have a read. Not saying Saddam never had some fun screwing with the inspectors, but if the threat of invasion was enough to get him to stop and all this was going forward so well, why invade?
Had the prior Iraqi regime complied without even the months long final warning process (let alone the ten plus years prior), no bombs, tanks, or other assorted objects that go boom would have ever been needed.
According to your own president, this isn't true. Even though they now know there was no WMD, the invasion was still needed because some day Saddam might have decided to maybe make more WMD.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
When a nuclear-armed nutcase talks of turning his neighbors's countries into a "sea of fire", and then starts showing off the weapons capable of doing so, then starts developing ICBMs, I think we should take notice.
You mean when people like this say things like this?
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
I'm really not sure where to start...
To begin with, the Galileo system is reputed to have better accuracy. Positional accuracy is, after all, the point of the whole system. So why wouldn't they do it. Furthermore, your reaction to them merely setting up a separate system not controlled by your own government seems to me to be good evidence that were the shoe on the other foot, you'd likely be extolling the virtues of a system not controlled by a foreign country with even more fervor.
As for unleashing our nuclear arsenal, I know you must be kidding. Mutually assured destruction, despite my admitted characterization of it as lunacy during the Cold War, works. France, Germany, England, Russia, etc. have nukes too my friend. All of that is, of course, an argument beyond the simple absurdity of your statement.
As for invading Europe, we can't even control a country with less land area than Texas. What makes you think we could successfully invade Europe and prevail?
And how would the U.S. shut down the internet? Cripple, sure. But I don't imagine there's a big red button in the White House that simply shuts down the internet. We may have developed the core of the internet; but I think that saying we control it is a bit ridiculous.
Finally, you can shake your finger and say "shame on you" all you like. We just did invade a country without provocation or necessity. I'm all for our presence in Afghanistan; but Iraq is a lark. It was the personal agenda of the President, misrepresented and sold to the larger public as a defense of our national security and freedom in general.
Really, take a pill. The Europeans are launching a satellite positioning network. It doesn't rate talk of nuclear war and ground invasions.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Oh man, I barely know where to start. How about here:
We could unleash our nuclear arsenal and flatten Europe.
Indeed you could. And 1 minute after your missiles left the grund. France, England and probably Russia would retaliate, flattening the USA with their nuclear arsenals.
We could withdraw all our trade and let Europe flounder on its own
I suppose you could but are you aware of the trade balance between the US and Europe? I suggest you look it up before embargoing.
We could even invade and take control of Europe
Oh dear. Considering that your entire army cant control two 3rd world countries with a total population of around 50 million, where the governments are your puppets, I seriously doubt you could "invade and control" 400+ million people with high tech weapons, well organized armies, and fully developed infrastructure.
While we could shut the internet off at any time
Indeed you could shut down your root servers. And the internet would probably stop working outside of national nets for all of 30 minutes before everone had repointed their DNS.